We just got Takenoko yesterday, and I am amazed at how tricky and strategic a game can be when it's graced by such a cute cartoon panda as one of the pieces. The one bit of strategy I've realised is quite important:

Spoiler:

Always keep a few objective cards in hand, whether they're complete or not. If you have no cards, then (a) you've got no immediate way to earn points, and (b) your opponent can end the game, safe in the knowledge that you won't suddenly drop a bunch of points to steal the win.

ConMan wrote:We just got Takenoko yesterday, and I am amazed at how tricky and strategic a game can be when it's graced by such a cute cartoon panda as one of the pieces. The one bit of strategy I've realised is quite important:

Spoiler:

Always keep a few objective cards in hand, whether they're complete or not. If you have no cards, then (a) you've got no immediate way to earn points, and (b) your opponent can end the game, safe in the knowledge that you won't suddenly drop a bunch of points to steal the win.

That's reasonable strategy for the mid-game, though other players may have a fair idea what your objectives are from your play anyway. In the endgame, however, all else being equal, it's better to pull the trigger yourself (and get the extra 2 points) than to give the other players time to catch up and give them control over when the game ends - if you have a specific reason to hold off a turn or two to pick up a significant boost, then go for it - but it does mean giving other players more opportunities to pick up their own points...

ConMan wrote:We just got Takenoko yesterday, and I am amazed at how tricky and strategic a game can be when it's graced by such a cute cartoon panda as one of the pieces. The one bit of strategy I've realised is quite important:

Spoiler:

Always keep a few objective cards in hand, whether they're complete or not. If you have no cards, then (a) you've got no immediate way to earn points, and (b) your opponent can end the game, safe in the knowledge that you won't suddenly drop a bunch of points to steal the win.

That's reasonable strategy for the mid-game, though other players may have a fair idea what your objectives are from your play anyway. In the endgame, however, all else being equal, it's better to pull the trigger yourself (and get the extra 2 points) than to give the other players time to catch up and give them control over when the game ends - if you have a specific reason to hold off a turn or two to pick up a significant boost, then go for it - but it does mean giving other players more opportunities to pick up their own points...

Yeah, you have a point. It also depends on whether you've got a hand full of things like the 8-point "4 green stacks of 3", or all the cheap panda cards. Like I said, we just got it so we're getting used to the strategy. And it also depends on whether they're gardener cards (which may not be claimable next turn if someone changes the board state) or plot/panda ones. And of course the 5-card limit prevents you from hoarding *everything*.

So hit a thrift store last week and had great luck. 21 good quality games for $51. Mostly Fantasy Flight, Z-man, and ...some other big publisher I can't recall right now. Had only heard of 1-2 of the games, but they're all in good to great condition, and some are unpunnched.

Played the first one yesterday - Arcana. Neat little game, quick to learn, and will be quick to play. Only issue is it looks like a game that will bury you if you have a poor start. I didn't start very well, and my two opponents had 50% more points at the end of the game. Not even close.

When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

Played Eclipse again last weekend. It was much easier to play the second time around, but it was also a bit disappointing. It was a three player game, and two of us got screwed while exploring. One guy got a bunch of money planets the first few turns, while we didn't. So he was taking say 4 actions per turn, when we struggled to do two. Then technology hosed us as well. I'd forgotten about the orbital tech, but it came out too late to be useful. The advanced money tech came out, but it came at exactly the wrong time, and the player that was already in the lead got it before me.

So I enjoyed the game, and would definitely play it again, but was disappointed that luck in the first few rounds made the rest of the game pointless.

When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

I've played Morels about a dozen times now with different people, and it's by far the best 2-player game I've ever played. It's easy to teach, easy to play, but deep enough to be fun and interesting even after several games. It's also quick (games last about 20m), and works well both when sober and somewhat drunk. Finally, games tend to be very close - it's extremely hard to get curbstomped, because by necessity the two of you specialize on different mushrooms as things show up, and there's enough pans that you don't get screwed.

Over the weekend I got a chance to play Mysterium, which I've really been wanting to play. I really enjoyed it.

It's kind of like a cross between Dixit & Clue.

One player is playing a ghost and everyone else are mediums. The ghost gives clues to the mediums to try to get them to figure out how it was killed (who did it, where it happened, and what was used). But the Ghost can't actually speak, all they can do is hand cards with art work to the mediums as clues. Then the players have to try and figure out the specific person/place/thing based on those clues.

And it's the same sort of artwork on Dixit cards so if you've seen those then you'll have some idea how tricky it can be to go from the artwork on a clue card and try to tie it to a specific option in play.

There are some more mechanics involved, but that's the core game play.

Some of the gameplay changes with only 2 or 3 players and it sounds like it's definitely more interested with 4 or more (it plays up to 7, I believe).

I swear I looked for this thread before I posted my question in "recommend a game" thread and couldn't find it. Oh well, it fits there too.

I played Mysterium a bit too many times (it was one of the games we worked on at the after-school program I volunteer at) and I have to say I absolutely hate that game - I find it incredibly difficult to give proper clues, I think it's very boring (ghost looks for good clues while everyone just waits around for something to happen, then everyone debates while ghost is bored), it's really frustrating, to me. In addition, as a game to play at an after-school program (with the adults playing as ghosts), it was hard to pay attention to what the kids were doing since I had to concentrate so much on my play, but that's not really a fault of the game.

Personally, I much prefer Codenames as an asymmetrical cooperative game. Yes, it has its downtime moments while you're trying to figure out the best clue, but it doesn't feel as frustrating to me as Mysterium, and a lot more fun as the codemaster to listen to my teammates guess at things.

For me the difficulty of giving proper clues is a feature. But different strokes.

It's interesting the issues you saw with downtime. Maybe it's a scaling issue. I only played 3 people (so one ghost and 2 people each playing two mediums). But once the game got started I don't think there was ever more than a minute or two of downtime between something happening. And most of that would be at the beginning of the round, since once the ghost hands out the first clue/clues then everyone can be looking at them and start comparing them to the possible choices. And then more clues are handed out and the pattern repeats until everyone has clues. And at that point deciding on a choice happened pretty quickly.

Granted I've only played once, so I can only speak to the singular experience. But I'm definitely putting this on my list of board games I want to buy and play a lot more of.

Agreed on Codenames being a fun game. I hadn't even heard of it until a few months ago then got it as a Christmas gift. Played it maybe 10 times since.

I agree that there shouldn't be alternating downtime in Mysterium - once the first clue is given, the ghost always has the cards for the next clue and either knows what he needs to give clues for, or, at worst, has a choice of two possibilities for a given player. The psychics can be considering clues from the moment the first one is given until/unless they reach a point where everyone has just guessed correctly (so there are no clues outstanding) and the ghost hasn't yet decided his first clue for the next round.

If you're alternating downtime, that usually means the ghost is putting too much attention into what the psychics are saying, and not enough into the cards in his hand.

Well as someone who's played the game three times in the past month, I can safely say I didn't concentrate on what the kids were talking about. We played with a large group (5-6 psychics every time) which may have made it more difficult. Obviously the clues are supposed to be cryptic and vague, but for me it was just annoying and I couldn't find a single thing in common between the possible clues and the objects. It just felt slow, boring, and frustrating - overall not fun. I get that other people had different experiences, and I'm glad you found a game that you enjoy.

Zohar wrote:Well as someone who's played the game three times in the past month, I can safely say I didn't concentrate on what the kids were talking about. We played with a large group (5-6 psychics every time) which may have made it more difficult. Obviously the clues are supposed to be cryptic and vague, but for me it was just annoying and I couldn't find a single thing in common between the possible clues and the objects. It just felt slow, boring, and frustrating - overall not fun. I get that other people had different experiences, and I'm glad you found a game that you enjoy.

According to an interview with the creator, each vision card is supposed to have 7 deliberate references to things on other cards - though not everyone will see all of them, and there are probably more that aren't intended...

Wondering what on earth any of the dreams have to do with any of the cards is a common experience for ghost players - and shortly after that, for psychics too...

There are things there, but they're usually minor details rather than anything obvious - for example, a tree with red apples may be intended to point to the red ball of wool on one of the character cards...

rmsgrey wrote:According to an interview with the creator, each vision card is supposed to have 7 deliberate references to things on other cards - though not everyone will see all of them, and there are probably more that aren't intended...

The first time I played, the person teaching the game pointed out that each location card contains one of the murder weapons.

I just played a game called Eldritch Horror with my boyfriend, which I found a lot of fun. It's co-operative and based roughly around the Lovecraft mythos. Players play as investigators, who are trying to get to the bottom of the mysterious happenings around the world and prevent the eventual awakening of an Elder God. Each turn is in three phases - first, players can move around, rest, or perform various other actions; next, they have encounters based on the space they inhabit on the board, which can be things like gathering resources, research, fighting monsters, or attempting to close gates which are spawned at various places (think Oblivion gates); finally, a Mythos card is drawn and the effects resolved - these are nearly always bad and often serve to advance the countdown to the awakening of the Elder God.

There's a lot more to it, but that's the basic gist anyway. We lost, quite badly, but it was a lot of fun.

Yeah, Eldritch is pretty low on the actual "horror" content; the cthulhu stuff is a pretty thin skin over the mechanics. Good co-op game overall, so I wouldn't cross it off as a possibility.

I like Forbidden Island more than Forbidden Desert; Island is like Desert without as much fiddly mechanics, imo. Just streamlined oh-fuck-oh-fuck-we're-BONED action, right up my alley. I'll look thru my collection tonight and see what other 2-player co-ops we like.

Carlington wrote:I just played a game called Eldritch Horror with my boyfriend, which I found a lot of fun. It's co-operative and based roughly around the Lovecraft mythos.

Has the word "eldritch" ever been used outside Lovecraft and semi-Lovecraft work? Bit like Cyclopean and Daemonic, really.

Terry Pratchett used it occasionally - some of his characters suggest that it means "oblong" - though he does also dabble in Lovecraft-lite on Discworld (particularly in the earlier books, where Things from the Dungeon Dimensions lurk outside the circle of firelight we call reality...)

stopmadnessnow wrote:Has the word "eldritch" ever been used outside Lovecraft and semi-Lovecraft work?

It's been used as a name but whether you consider the Sisters of Mercy to be inside, outside, the flipside of, inclusive of, overlapping, diametrically opposite to or synonymous with Lovecraftian works is a question I cannot answer for you.

Got my kickstarted Tiny Epic Kingdoms expansion (Heroes' Call) recently - new region-types (Tundra, which can be harvested for any resource, but kills meeples who don't leave on the next movement action and Peaks, which are the only source of Silver, which acts as any resource outside of War), new mechanics (Hero meeples who have their own special abilities and War Towers which give bonuses to defend their region and are needed for progress on the Tower card), new factions, and new rules for single-player.

I've not tried single-player, but the rest of the new stuff works pretty well - it takes a little longer to play because of the increased options, but it's not too bad.

The expansion includes 20 new room tiles—creating a whole extra floor of the haunted house, the rooftop, for players to explore on their adventures—as well as 30 new cards to fill said rooftop with important items and events. Widow’s Walk also features 50 new “haunts,” the game-changing scenarios that are uncovered by players during a game, giving them a new set of goals to work towards to win (often while secretly having to defeat one of their own working against them).

All of the new haunts feature new storytelling from a host of contributors, including Adventure Time creator Pendleton Ward, Penny Arcade writer Jerry Holkin’s, Cards Against Humanity’s Max Temkin and Eli Halpern, The Doubleclick’s Angela Webber, and many more—meaning there’s suddenly a whole new swathe of petrifying tales of corruption and supernatural horror to be told in board game’s most infamous household.

gmalivuk wrote:

King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.

Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

Completed a board game survey. Returned play style preferences. Feels accurate, although lopsided. Appears less complex than its video game counterpart. Described it as an early model, though. Found it interesting nevertheless.

Preliminary Model of 4 MotivationsWe identified 4 clusters of motivations. In each, there is a primary component and a secondary component (i.e., a related modifier or addition). In general, motivations within the same cluster tend to be positively correlated, while motivations between clusters tend to be statistically unrelated. We’ll walk you through all these motivations and components below.

A Quick Word on PercentilesPercentiles are how you rank relative to other people. In this report, your percentiles are how you compared with other gamers who have participated in this profile tool. A percentile of 80% means you scored higher than 80% of gamers. Conversely, a percentile of 10% means 90% of gamers had a higher score than you. This means that a 50% is perfectly average.

Gamers with high Conflict scores tend be more competitive and enjoy games where players can take hostile actions directly against each other. This could be stealing another player’s resources, forcing them to discard, or destroying their units/buildings. Confrontational mechanics often create more dynamic gameplay because the stakes are higher. After all, when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. These players enjoy games like Cosmic Encounter, Android: Netrunner, or Smash Up. Conversely, these gamers dislike games that restrict player interactions where each player is largely walled off in their own world (such as Agricola).

Secondary Motivation: Social Manipulation (0%)Gamers who score high on Social Manipulation enjoy playing psychological mind games, where outcomes aren’t determined by dice or rulebooks, but instead by their ability to bluff, deceive, and persuade other players. The social arena of trust and negotiation is their favored battleground. They enjoy games where they have to convince other players of something (especially if it’s a lie), such as in games like Coup, One Night Ultimate Werewolf, or Battlestar Galactica. Sure, sometimes their friends may hate them when the game ends, but what good are friends that you can’t lie to from time to time?

Gamers with high Strategy scores enjoy taking on cognitive challenges. For them, games are a fun way to hone and test their intellectual abilities. Thus, they prefer games that require a lot of thinking and planning, reward sound decisions, and where strategic mastery and skill (rather than luck) are the primary determinants of the game’s outcome. They enjoy complexity, whether this comes from an intricate ruleset or overlapping mechanics that have short and long term trade-offs. They prefer slower paced games that give them the time to ponder their moves, and more incremental gameplay where elaborate strategies can be planned and executed. You might find them playing games like Terra Mystica, Castles of Burgundy, or Race for the Galaxy.

Secondary Motivation: Systems Discovery (2%)Gamers who score high on this motivation are discoverers who have a broad interest in rulesets, game mechanics, and the play spaces that are enabled and emerge from different game systems. To this end, they enjoy keeping up with new game releases and staying up to date with the current meta. They take the time to find out about and try new game mechanics. As part of this, they also tend to have a good sense of the history and idiosyncrasies of different game designers and publishers. While they enjoy innovative game mechanics, they have a varied (or even eclectic) game palate, and are likely to play a broad range of games.

Fantasy (15%) - Immersed vs. GroundedFantasy: 15%Aesthetics: 1%

Spoiler:

Gamers who have high Fantasy scores enjoy being immersed in another world, with its own lore, history, and cast of interesting characters. Being able to choose or customize their starting character/city enhances this sense of taking on a role in another world. They like the implicit narrative of being part of an unfolding story as they play the game, and enjoy titles like Arkham Horror, Descent, or Mice and Mystics. To them, the game is a fantasy world that comes alive as it is played.

Secondary Motivation: Aesthetics (1%)Gamers who score high on Aesthetics like high-quality components that strongly reflect the theme and setting of the game. They enjoy tactile components that capture, enhance, and represent the fantasy world created by the game. This includes components (e.g., cards, game boards, props) that are beautifully designed and illustrated, as well as sculpted miniatures that represent the game’s characters or buildings. They enjoy games such as Tokaido, Above and Below, or Zombicide.

For gamers who score high on Social Fun, playing board games is first and foremost about having a good time with other people. The board game itself is simply a convenient prop around which friends and family can gather and have fun together. They enjoy the chatting, the social interaction, and the shared laughter that games (especially party games) can elicit. For them, board games are a great catalyst for a fun social gathering. They enjoy games like Exploding Kittens, Codenames, or Time's Up.

Secondary Motivation: Acessibility (13%)Gamers who score high on Accessibility prefer games that a broad range of people can pick up and enjoy. After all, if you like playing board games with other people, then it’s helpful to have games that a lot of people can get into. Thus, these players favor games that are easy to learn, and accessible even to people with very little gaming experience. And if they enjoy board games as part of family gatherings, then family-friendly themes are also a plus. In their game collection might be titles like King of Tokyo, Takenoko, or Ticket to Ride.

That was interesting, Deva. My ratings came out pretty much were I expected them - I'm heavily into strategic games, I don't mind conflict, but don't need it, the theme doesn't really matter to me, and I'm not particularly keen on social or party games. Although I did feel that, while I'm ambivalent about the setting of a game, if the game does have an involving setting I do really enjoy that aspect (as with Arkham Horror, for example, from their suggested games list, or even full-blown RPGs), and that didn't seem to be adequately captured by the ratings. It's not important to me, but it is very enjoyable.

Has anyone played Codenames before? Essentially you have a grid of cards with words on the underside (supposed to be the codenames of spies) - the object is for you to give clues to your team to guess each card until you complete your set. It's really fun getting creative with your clues, and a really great laugh with a bunch of friends!

Codenames is great! Yes, it's very hard for the codemaster, especially at first when there's so much stuff to look at, though you do get better in time. It's doubly frustrating when you give a clue and the group veers to a completely different direction from what you meant, or you didn't notice something on the board, and you're not allowed to say anything.

I love Codenames. With 4 players, it's a more cerebral experience, with 6 or more it's closer to a party game. It's definitely tough on the Spymaster, especially when you know you have to win the game in two rounds and you're trying to not just join as many words as possible but actually work out a way to split them into two groups.

Xanthir wrote:Yeah, it's a great party game for the boardgame-newbie crowd, as it's easy to learn and play but still has good depth and fun for experienced people. It also won the Spiel this year. ^_^

It's not an ideal party game - the clue-givers end up having a bit of an antisocial time - but it's still a good game for a medium-sized group (once you get above about ten people, it can start to get a bit unwieldy and for small groups you pretty much have to stick with the one team version).

I also encourage other people to have a go at giving clues - mostly so they appreciate how difficult it is...

Being codemaster can be really difficult, definitely, but that's my favorite part I think! It's also so interesting to see who gels well as a team, sometimes you think you know someone really well, but discover you have entirely different thought processes. That's the thing for me, I love trying to figure out how my team thinks when giving clues, rather than just making connections that make sense to me.